The overall rating of a review is different from a simple average of all individual ratings.

Share this review on

To even suggest that animal testing should be banned; first of all you’ve got to denote whether animals have rights.

At this time of year, you’ll witness many dead animals, at the side of roads, all victims of ‘hit and run’. Yet I’ve never seen anyone standing over the animal corpse showing remorse, deep regret, at the brutal death. It is a fact we all look, and choose to ignore the agony the animal had to endure; at our hands. By just going a mile down the road in the 4X4, to get some groceries - many insects and small animals would’ve perished on the journeys so that you could continue a vegan lifestyle. Hypocritical, don’t you think? What about the Christmas Day ‘Animal Rights Protestors’ who in their hundreds invaded the grass verges, lofting their ‘Animal Right’ banners on main roads across the UK – how many small animal homes did they destroy? These are rhetorical questions, simply allowing realism to show a clearer perspective.

Animals do not have rights against other animals so how do they see Homo Sapiens? Yes, they see us as ‘another animal’. Not as humans. It may surprise the ‘Animal Rights’ activist, who ultimately have fought tooth and nail for animal rights - animals are incapable of acknowledging such legal comforts, such as ‘rights’. A caramel Jersey Cow is not going to walk beside you in a field and say: “Moo-self and ‘moo’
ancestors really appreciate what you’ve done regarding our rights; it’s been milked for years”. I share a view with Descartes (French Philosopher) which questions the consciousness of an animal; they cannot comprehend anything of a more complex intellect, than what they’re borne with. ‘Natural Selection’ is how we can measure a form of intelligence. An ability to survive via instinct alone a method which we humans aren’t that adapt to anymore in comparison - considering that some of us have evolved beyond our Stone Age existence. I therefore sway in allegiance to Descartes, he as does many philosophers deem undomesticated animals, no more than ‘biological robots’.

Nevertheless, in the US - Animal-law courses are now available. Makes you ponder if ‘Dr. Doolittle’ may have something to do with it. Irrationalism plagues us, just as rationalism educates us. Animals duly don’t relate to morals of any formula. They have a Machiavellian stance to nature (such as eating meat) just as we do – their stance is they do it for survival. Oh wait a minute, human-kind are doing exactly the same thing as animals when it comes to survival. The difference is via intelligence. By being of intellectual mind - researchers are eliminating fatal diseases/conditions to safeguard our species survival. Over the last few years’, pandemics have threatened us, yet as far none has defeated us, this is due to the extensive testing on NHP’s (Non-Human Primates). In 2010, pandemic threats were real and in response 10% more animal research was required, as a necessity funded and organized by the WHO (World Health Organization). Animal testing is paramount for the human species to develop, evolve, and improve upon our own welfare and deteriorating human conditions. If, such tests prove to help cosmetic/pharmaceutical corporations improve product effectiveness, surely that is a plus. Funding wise it will aid research centres, instead of it being reliant on the public finances. Sadly, stem-cell research has practically stopped in the US due to their austerity measures and pressures from ‘Animal-Law’ activists, who prey on corporations that fund animal laboratories and research centres.

In the developed world the term ‘animal rights’ has gone beyond being an oxymoron – in fact it has become an obsession that in some areas has made food chains become suddenly non-viable for human consumption. Now it is deemed as unethical, by those who make it their life’s work to protect sub-humans/animals who have no ethics or moral judgments of their own – the term ‘barking up the wrong tree’ comes to mind, as it is the same odious groups who’ll aim to stop NHP research for good. Who protest for protest sake; without thinking it through? That is until reality strikes home, when it becomes apparent a relative or a friend requires a drug to combat a disease or condition. Reality, like ‘Peter Falk in the TV series Columbo’ has an eerie trait of turning up unannounced – and it is the same with diseases and conditions. NHP tests has improved the condition of those with Diabetes, Parkinson disease, stroke sufferers, heart disease, prolong the condition of HEP C sufferers via transfusion , colon cancer, the tranquilizer, and renewal spinal cord therapy. A special mention goes out to the remarkable researchers who go further than the call of duty in the most adverse times, under the deranged noses of the ‘politically correct, animal right protestors’. Whatever the political bill, suits the thrill, types - if these morons get it their way, soon animals will appear in court along with an animal lawyer (once was attempted in Switzerland) claiming he/she knows what the animal is feeling and saying - herewith, the true meaning of a kangaroo court.

An acquaintance of mine is giving her body to science, after death - many disagree she should. She has a right to do this - animals have no rights in the first place. It appeared to me people generally haven’t a clue how their medicine came into fruition, so long it works and they’re feeling better because of it- its origins are long forgotten. Usually they’re anti-animal testing; until you remind them of course that their beloved Uncle John was able to fully recover from a stroke thanks to NHP testing.

Stringent measures are in place so that the conditions of the animals are in peek condition, prior to testing; otherwise contamination will occur. No other alternative procedures are available - hereby; we should let the scientists do their job, and by doing so, we may survive another few thousand years.

Rate a review "exceptional" if it gives readers outstanding advice for making a good buying decision

The review covers all aspects of the product and its user-friendliness which would be relevant to making a product choice. All remarks are founded on evidence from personal experience and the author remains objective throughout. A reader could find sufficient information here to base his/her purchase decision on this review alone.

Rate a review "very helpful" if it clearly supports others in making a good buying decision

The review covers a wide range of product features and the author's position is clearly-explained, well-structured and founded, for the most part, on solid evidence. This review would be of great use to somebody making a product choice, but would have to be used in conjunction with other information sources.

Rate a review "not helpful" if it gives inaccurate, offensive and useless information.

The review is not a helpful decision-making aid. The information it provides is subjective and lacks foundation. Perhaps the content contains comments which do not relate to the product and may be offensive to other members.

Rate a review "off topic" if it has been posted in the wrong place and/or does not discuss the product.

Reviews relating to products in other categories, or those which stray onto unrelated subjects should be rated "off topic". This will let other readers know that they need not read the review when seeking information that would be useful in a purchase decision.

One of your better reviews here, Shaun. I actually see what you are saying. I personally believe animal testing should be limited. I do for example agree on testing on things like rodents... e.g. Pigeons, Rats and even Mice.

GodfatherOfSoul 17.05.2012 15:14

A very thought-provoking and interesting piece.

Nar2 16.05.2012 12:06

A good report here that actually underlines a lot of home truths. We worry so much as humans to come across as all caring and sharing, but ultimately at the end of the day, if animal testing didn't exist, we wouldn't have such a long life. I was one of those animal saver/activists when I was younger and naive but it didn't take me long to realise that these groups are flawed.